Science or Selective Ignorance? In an editorial published in Science magazine on July 3, Marcia McNutt, Editor-in-Chief of the Science Journals, removed all doubt concerning the direction that this once prestigious journal is taking. In “The beyond-two-degree inferno”, she wrote: “The time for debate has ended. Action is urgently needed.” Then, she strongly supports the contrived effort of the European Union to keep “global warming” below 2°C above the preindustrial level – a number for which we have no rigorous measurement or logic. She advocates the political position of the Administration in forcing reductions in carbon dioxide emission (CO2) by stating “The United States has pledged reductions of 26 to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025…” Of course, there is no such pledge by the American people and its representatives in Congress. The Administration’s pledge is arbitrary and authoritarian. Ms. McNutt concludes with a description of the nine circles of Hell found in Dante’s Inferno.

Ms. McNutt continues a trend established in the Science journals by Donald Kennedy (2000-2008), who declared while he is editor, Science would no longer accept articles contradicting the pronouncements of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on global warming, later termed climate change, regardless of the empirical data presented.

The IPCC reports featured glaring deficiencies such as the falsely named distinct human fingerprint, a hot-spot over the tropics, which no one can empirically find; Mr. Mann’s hockey-stick, based on sparse data, from which contradicting data was deleted; and global climate models, which greatly overestimate warming, as current measurements demonstrate. The logic behind this editorial policy can be described as selective ignorance. Please see links under Defending the Orthodoxy, including an excellent critique by Judith Curry.

###################################################

Quote of the Week:“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.” Thomas Henry Huxley [H/t Rational Optimist]

###################################################

Number of the Week: 50 to 140 times

###################################################

SEPP ADDRESS

We Are Consolidating Several Addresses to One:

Please address all your correspondence to SEPP to:

Post Office Box 1126

Springfield, VA 22151

###################################################

16th Century Thinking: European scientific thinking of the 16th century was dominated by the re-discovery of the works of the Greeks. Their works in geometry and astronomy were very good, particularly considering the lack of precise instruments. Estimates of size of the earth and the moon, and the distance between them were quite accurate. However, they generally underestimated the size of the sun and its distance from the earth.

The concept of a heliocentric solar system was suggested by Aristarchus (died about 232 B.C.) and was accepted by some astronomers but eventually rejected, particularly by Ptolemy, a Roman, (about 150 A.D), whose system became the one widely accepted in the 16th century. During the 16th century, learning and written documents were extremely limited, and authority and consensus were dominate.

Copernicus disagreed with the Ptolemy concept of the solar system, but the work was not published until the year of his death in 1543. It was up to Galileo to earn the full wrath of the Greek scholars (often called Aristotelian scientists) that dominated science in the period. Galileo confronted the scientific models and assumptions of the era with observations from nature and experiments. The most dramatic of these confrontations was proposing a heliocentric solar system, with an earth that orbited the sun annually, rotated daily, and titled on its axis. [Kepler proposed elliptical, not circular, orbits doing away with epicycles, and non-uniform speeds.] Using a telescope, Galileo identified spots on the sun, refuting the notion that it was immutable (unchanging). There are various versions of what occurred in the 17th century (until Newton) and the importance of various groups.

However, for the purposes of this discussion, one must note that Galileo was the first, influential astronomer of the Renaissance to propose that observations take precedence over authority and consensus of opinion as the objective standard in science. He incurred the full wrath of the scientific establishment of that time.

*******************

The Sun? Royal Astronomical Society published a study of a “new model of the Sun’s solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun’s” 10 to 12 year solar cycle. “The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone. Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ that began in 1645.”

“It is 172 years since a scientist first spotted that the Sun’s activity varies over a cycle lasting around 10 to 12 years. But every cycle is a little different and none of the models of causes to date have fully explained fluctuations. Many solar physicists have put the cause of the solar cycle down to a dynamo caused by convecting fluid deep within the Sun. Now, Zharkova and her colleagues have found that adding a second dynamo, close to the surface, completes the picture with surprising accuracy.”

“We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs, originating in two different layers in the Sun’s interior. They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different, and they are offset in time. Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97%,” said Zharkova.

Zharkova and her colleagues derived their model using a technique called ‘principal component analysis’ of the magnetic field observations from the Wilcox Solar Observatory in California. They examined three solar cycles-worth of magnetic field activity, covering the period from 1976-2008. In addition, they compared their predictions to average sunspot numbers, another strong marker of solar activity. All the predictions and observations were closely matched.

Looking ahead to the next solar cycles, the model predicts that the pair of waves become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022. During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch and this will cause a significant reduction in solar activity.

“In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other – peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other. We predict that this will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder minimum’,” said Zharkova. “Effectively, when the waves are approximately in phase, they can show strong interaction, or resonance, and we have strong solar activity. When they are out of phase, we have solar minimums. When there is full phase separation, we have the conditions last seen during the Maunder minimum, 370 years ago.”

Since the period covered in the testing is only three solar cycles, 1976 to 2008, it is far too brief to draw any long-term conclusions. However, the accuracy in the testing is significant. Further, the cooling corresponds with predictions from some other solar scientists.

The short period of study understood, The Summary for Policymakers of Fifth Assessment Report (AR-5), Synthesis Report, of the IPCC also covers a relatively short period. Table SPM.3 presents “Contributions to observed surface temperature change over the period 1951–2010.” Yet, the IPCC expressed 95% certainty in its work.

The total of natural forcings presented by the IPCC in this table covers a temperature range of about minus 0.1 ºC to plus 0.1 ºC. If the new report of the Royal Astronomical Society bears out, and we experience a cooling greater than 0.1 ºC, the IPCC and the climate establishment has significant problems. See links under: Science: Is the Sun Rising?, Commentary: Is the Sun Rising?, and Defending the Orthodoxy

*******************

NAS: The nominating committee of the US National Academy of Sciences has nominated Marcia McNutt to be the next President, a five year term. Traditionally, this nominee is unopposed and becomes the President. Will the censorship practiced by Science in rejecting articles contradicting IPCC reports become the norm of the NAS? How would they explain a cooling caused by diminished solar energy? See links under Lowering Standards.

*******************

Environmentalism Gone Mad: Retired EPA researcher and environmentalist, Alan Carlin, brings up certain disturbing issues about the EPA. EPA conducted a study on DDT and found no compelling evidence that ordinary use of DDT is harmful to humans. Yet, administrator Ruckelshaus banned DDT, claiming that it may cause cancer. The ban and subsequent government and environmental group activities resulted in tens of millions of preventable deaths from malaria, mostly in poor countries. Carlin estimates the number of deaths to be about 50 million. The World Health Organization estimates that, today, about 500,000 die from malaria every year. This ban illustrates that one cannot assume the activities of the EPA or environmental groups are for the benefit of human health.

In another posting, Carlin explains why climate alarmists want governments to impose limits on growth. See links under: Two Cases of Environmentalism Gone Mad, Questioning the Orthodoxy, and Other News that May Be of Interest

*******************

Energy Costs in Manufacturing: According an article in Fortune, the Boston Consulting Group, estimates the Manufacturing Cost Index to be 95% in China; 100% in the US; 108% in the U.K. and 116% in Germany [The US is the standard for the index.]. The energy share of the Manufacturing Cost Index, is 3% US, 6% China, 8% U.K., and 9% Germany – and it is falling in the US. Reasons for a narrowing of the index between China and the US are rising wages in China, increasing productivity in the US; but, most importantly, fracking bringing down energy costs in the US, particularly for energy intensive industries. Yet, the Administration is trying to bring the US energy cost in line with Germany’s? See link under Non-Green Jobs.

*******************

Additions and Corrections: A past TWTW termed projections by NASA from climate models to 2100 as a data set, which was promptly corrected by some readers. For example: “Calling the NASA projections a ‘data set’ is itself proclaiming a misnomer. That fact should be made known to the general public. Computer generated numbers are not “data” per se.”

Also, there were several errors in the description of the Number of the Week, corrected below for the appropriate number. TWTW always appreciates such corrections and additions.

*******************

Number of the Week: 50 to 140 times. [Note, there were errors in last week’s description.] Two weeks ago, TWTW gave a rough calculation of the relative weights of natural forcing as compared to anthropogenic (human) forcing of the climate system from atmospheric carbon dioxide as presented in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, AR-4), published in 2007. These were calculated from the table titled “Radiative Forcing Components. The influence of carbon dioxide ranged from 5 to 6 times larger to 25 to 30 times larger than the only natural forcing considered – changes in solar intensity (visible light). These were based on Figure SPM.2, which stated “the understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2.”

Identical calculations for IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR-5) cannot be made because the critical table is not presented. Instead, a different table is presented: “Contributions to observed surface temperature change over the period 1951–2010” from the Summary for Policymakers of the Synthesis report. The range for all natural variability is about minus 0.1 º C to plus 0.1 º C with a mean of about 0.01 º C. [Not minus 0.5 to plus 0.5 as stated last week.] The range for the influence of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, is not specifically given. According to these IPCC numbers, the influence of greenhouse gases is about 50 to 140 times greater than natural influences. When one considers these estimates in light of past climate change, there is little doubt why the climate models are failing. See links under Defending the Orthodoxy.

###################################################

ARTICLES:

Please note that articles not linked easily or summarized here are reproduced in the Articles Section of the full TWTW that can be found on the web site under the date of the TWTW.

SUMMARY: Even though the opponents of EPA’s questionable anti-coal, mercury regulations were victorious in the Supreme Court, the EPA significantly damaged the US electrical generation system. “In 2011, the year the EPA proposed the anticarbon mercury rule that the Court has now ruled illegal, some 1,500 fossil-fuel-fired electric units were in operation. Only about 100 have not already closed or complied at a cost of billions of dollars.” The challenge to those states filing against the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, requiring another 30% carbon reduction, on average, from the states, is “the snail’s pace of the judicial process in response to new rules lends de facto immunity to whatever the EPA wants to do, even if the conclusion is another legal defeat that arrives too late to make a practical difference.”

“The EPA is counting on it. The agency knows that the Clean Power Plan’s precarious legal footing will be litigated for years, but it is trying to rush the rule out to make it a policy fait accompli before President Obama’s term expires. It also knows that the long lead time and investment decisions the plan compels—about power-plant retirements and upgrades, restructuring transmission lines, creating new green energy and efficiency subsidy programs—must begin today.”

As a solution to the delay the editorial supports Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt who has filed a preliminary injunction.

“Under the 1958 Supreme Court precedent Leedom v. Kyne and a subsequent line of cases, the courts can use their powers to block federal-government actions ‘when an agency exceeds the scope of its delegated authority or violates a clear statutory mandate.’ Plaintiffs must show that they are injured by judicial delay and that they are likely to succeed on the merits.

“Leedom actions have been used to stop abuses from the National Labor Relations Board and the Federal Trade Commission, and the EPA is a promising target. The agency’s unprecedented measures to restructure the U.S. energy economy under an obscure provision of the 1970s-era Clean Air Act have zero grounding in the text of the statute, much less Congress’s consent. Mr. Pruitt also argues that under the High Court’s federalism jurisprudence the EPA is unconstitutionally commandeering the sovereign states.

“If Mr. Pruitt does succeed and obtain an injunction, the Clean Power Plan would be put on ice for the rest of Mr. Obama’s term, much as the Fifth Circuit blocked his executive immigration actions. More to the point, an injunction would rebuke an agency that thinks it is above the law.”

*************

2. Oman to Build Giant Solar Plant to Extract Oil

Facility is the latest measure in Oman’s fight to halt a decline in production capacity

SUMMARY: In an interesting twist, Oman is building a 1,021-megawatt solar-thermal facility to create the steam necessary to extract extremely heavy oil under an enhanced oil recovery (EOR) techniques. Scheduled to be opened in 2017, the plant will replace part of the use of natural gas now used to create steam.

*************

3. The Trouble With Inspection Tools for Oil Pipelines

Technology has improved, but a recent crude spill along a California beach shows the pitfalls

SUMMARY: Even though pipeline inspection tools have significantly improved in recent years, the recent spill on a Santa Barbara, California, beach demonstrates not all the problems have been solved, such as by “Smart pigs,” the small devices put through pipelines to look for signs of weakness in the metal, are the size of an American football. One of the problems is that the devices return huge reams of data, taking a long time for humans to process. “You can have a smart pig, smart people, and dumb management.”

The cause of the spill is not yet known, and may not be for several months. Although pipeline operators are better at preventing spills than formerly, today’s technology is still far from perfect and most accidents aren’t caused by one single, easily preventable problem.

[SEPP Comment: The pledge has three parts: 1) CO2 emissions to peak by 2030; 2) Increase non-fossil fuels to 20% by 2030; 3) Cutting GHG emissions per unit of GDP by 60-65% from 2005 levels. Bring on the nuclear and hydro!]]

[SEPP Comment: China is growing so fast that the absolute amount of everything, such as carbon dioxide, is going up; but expressed as a percentage or per-capita, the numbers are coming down. That is a commonplace property of any “growth” scenario, such as the USA a century or so ago, etc. There is no cure for that phenomenon, but hopefully there will be new technologies coming along that will put a dent in the absolute amounts. If China goes really big for nuclear power or hydro (much to the chagrin of the greens), the grand total of emissions may level off someday.]

[SEPP Comment: NOAA’s National Center for Environmental Information (formerly the National Climatic Data Center) making the 1930s record colder. If these manipulations continue, will the 1930s turn to a Little Ice Age?]

“Our analysis revealed a shift in coral community composition but no impact of acidification on coral richness, coralline algae abundance, macroalgae cover, coral calcification, or skeletal density…. a comparison of the naturally low-pH coral reef systems studied so far revealed increased bioerosion to be the only consistent feature among them, as responses varied across other indices of ecosystem health.”

Contrasting futures for ocean and society from different anthropogenic CO2 emissions scenarios

“Science the magazine is more interested in generating publicity for itself than in best serving Science the field—a point being increasingly raised by prominent scientific figures.

But, the main story here is not the new findings (which will require further analysis to unpack their significance), but that Science magazine is publishing a paper describing physical mechanisms behind the hiatus that was accepted in its final form on June 24th, three weeks after Science’s paper announcing the hiatus to be a non-event….It is high time for everyone to realize that Science magazine can no longer be considered a science journal, but instead has joined the ranks of advocacy publications, for better or for worse.”

Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years

A newly unearthed missive from Lenny Bernstein, a climate expert with the oil firm for 30 years, shows concerns over high presence of carbon dioxide in enormous gas field in south-east Asia factored into decision not to tap it

“Apart from such experiments, we should go all out on solar power only after it is fully established as competitive, and even then only to the extent it does not disturb the grid….Otherwise we will be risking the entire edifice of Indian manufacturing on a bet that could go badly wrong.”

[SEPP Comment: Will the EPA continue to be able to get away with its imaginative accounting.]

New legal challenge for Hinkley Point C

A group of ten German and Austrian renewable energy suppliers and municipalities plans to file a lawsuit against European Commission approval of state aid for the planned Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant in the UK.

“Last year’s report estimated, for instance, that air pollution, largely from burning coal or oil, was equivalent to a 4.4 percent brake on annual world gross domestic product. Such pollution causes 3.7 million premature deaths a year, it said.”

“Unlike many of his followers, Savage carefully limited Bayesian decision theory to “small worlds” in which all alternatives, consequences, and probabilities are known. And he warned that it would be “utterly ridiculous” to apply Bayesian theory outside a well-defined world—for him, “to plan a picnic” was already outside because the planners cannot know all consequences in advance (Savage, 1954/1972: 16)”

[SEPP Comment: Objecting to trivial p values and the misuse of Bayesian statistics.]

21 thoughts on “Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #187”

Zharkova and her colleagues derived their model using a technique called ‘principal component analysis’ of the magnetic field observations from the Wilcox Solar Observatory in California. They examined three solar cycles-worth of magnetic field activity, covering the period from 1976-2008.
Her paper was from 2012 and only went through 2004. Even if extended to 2008 what happened to the 7 years since then? Looks like curve-fitting of hand waves to me. Here is the strength of the axial and equatorial dipoles. Extrapolating past 2015 is just that: extrapolation with no physical basis.http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Dipoles.png

“Solar activity will fall by 60%”
Please explain better. 60% less heat from the Sun? 60% fewer sunspots? Solar flux down by 60%?
Solar activity falling by 60% makes no sense unless you tell us what Solar activity…and how that translates to weather on Earth.

“The Sun? Royal Astronomical Society published a study of a “new model of the Sun’s solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun’s” 10 to 12 year solar cycle.”
Yes, the sun, The sun has tremendous impact upon the earth and its climate, and if you can’t see that then you just refuse to see. But is the sun everything? No, the system is very complex and all we have so far are simplifying models of the reality.
Any model of reality on this planet will need to include solar insolation, solar variability, gravity of the earth, mass of the atmosphere, conduction, convection, advection, water in all its phases, storms, currents, clouds, and special events like volcanic eruptions. Since CO2 does not have a climate effect in the lower atmosphere there is no reason to consider CO2 other than its cooling properties in the upper atmosphere.
The one take away from the climate debate is “convection rules in the lower atmosphere”. From memory I think I have to credit chiefio (E.M. Smith) for that phrase. Regardless, the weather machine of the planet earth moves heat from the equator region outward towards the poles and outward towards space. The weather machine cools the surface — it must do so.
And the oceans of the planet are perhaps the least understood in their impact on climate although some people have worked hard to understand the issue. More money and time needs to go in that direction.

Great news!
Could not wish for a better qualified person.
News from the National Academy of Sciences: Marcia K. McNutt
“Her research concentration is in marine geophysics, where she has used a variety of remote sensing techniques from ships and space to probe the dynamics of the mantle and overlying plates far from plate boundaries on geologic time scales.”
I am currently writing a ‘paper’ on effects of the isostatic uplift via ocean currents on the climate change. Postglacial uplift not only changes the surface configuration but has an effect on the mantle and thermal convection below, which is reflected in the changes in the geomagnetic field intensity.
Next in the pipeline speculates that the tectonic plates movements are accelerated and decelerated by Milankovic cycles (clear evidence in the Arctic Ocean of the last five, and possible of another 10-15), again affecting intensity of the ocean currents as the cause of the past Ice ages.
Will email copies when done, she just may show some interest (yea, yea …a nutter writing to McNutt)

It is good that some investigators causes of climate change set off on the right path where they can expect is a good result. And that is the analysis and research of the influence of the sun, which is the basic cause of all the changes in the sun.
I think the various models and programs that are made based on some estimates based on erroneous data, can not solve the problem.
According to my data, which are based on mutual relations and influences of the planets and the sun, it is possible to find all the cycles and sub-cycles, as in the past, present, and future. My argument is based on the basic appearance of the sunspot cycle of about 11.2 years. These cycles are multiplied by about 5.7 years to several tens of thousands. All of these cycles are different strengths, but that this is investigated thoroughly, it is necessary to have a powerful software, it is sufficient astronomical data and apply my proof.
Here I offer Bill Gates, he financed what I am giving my recipe and I guarantee that humanity will get so much knowledge, which will be worth several thousand Bill’s capital.
The time will come to present some data for the near future, as many would realize the true causes of climate change.

Some years ago, when all of us were much younger, Mr. Gates came to my place of work to present Windows 90 to the media. In a short private conversation (2 maybe 3 sentences exchanged) it was obvious that Mr, Gates was very unassuming ‘down to earth’ person, but unlikely to carelessly throw around bucket loads of money, thus I would suggest your 25% cut may not compensate you adequately even for an hour of your time.

Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
The atmospheric CO2 is well mixed and shows a variation with latitude which is less than 4% from pole to pole [Earth System Research Laboratory. 2008]. Thus one would expect that the latitude variation of ΔT from CO2 forcing to be also small. It is noted that low variability of trends with latitude is a result in some coupled atmosphere-ocean models. For example, the zonal-mean profiles of atmospheric temperature changes in models subject to “20CEN” forcing ( includes CO2 forcing) over 1979-1999 are discussed in Chap 5 of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program [Karl et al.2006]. The PCM model in Fig 5.7 shows little pole to pole variation in trends below altitudes corresponding to atmospheric pressures of 500hPa.
If the climate forcing were only from CO2 one would expect from property #2 a small variation with latitude. However, it is noted that NoExtropics is 2 times that of the global and 4 times that of the Tropics. Thus one concludes that the climate forcing in the NoExtropics includes more than CO2 forcing. These non-CO2 effects include: land use [Peilke et al. 2007]; industrialization [McKitrick and Michaels (2007), Kalnay and Cai (2003), DeLaat and Maurellis (2006)]; high natural variability, and daily nocturnal effects [Walters et al. (2007)]. (William: The answer is that solar cycle changes caused almost all of the warming.)
These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: “[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

As the earth is a sphere, not a flat table top and as the greenhouse gases are evenly distributed in the atmosphere the most amount of greenhouse warming should have occurred in the tropical regions where the most amount of long wave radiation is emitted to space; prior to the increase in atmospheric CO2, not in high latitude regions. (The same observation, no tropical warming, rules out TSI as the cause. The warming was not caused by increased total solar irradiation.)http://www.eoearth.org/files/115701_115800/115741/620px-Radiation_balance.jpg
2) Plateau of 18 years without warming paradox:
A plateau of 18 years without warming, is more difficult to explain and has different logical implications than a period with less than expected warming (a wiggly line that is gradually increasing). Less warming than predicted can be explained by less sensitivity to forcing or lags in the response of the climate to changes in forcing. The CO2 forcing mechanism is theoretically always present. As atmospheric CO2 has been gradually rising for the last 18 years, the CO2 forcing mechanism should if it was real, have increased.
3) No correlation Paradox
There are periods in the paleo record periods of millions of years when atmospheric CO2 is high and the planet is cold and vice versa. During the recent glacial/interglacial cycle, planetary temperature increases (glacial period ends by some unknown forcing function, the forcing function is not insolation at 65N) and then 500 to 600 years later atmospheric CO2 rises.
As Humlum et al note (see link to paper above) 7 out of 8 times (last 30 years) planetary temperature rises and then atmospheric CO2 rises. Cause must lead effect, not follow effect.
There is no correlation of planetary temperature with atmospheric CO2 rise (recent warming period) and there is curiously no correlation of anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the atmospheric CO2 rise. (The rise in atmospheric CO2 occurs in the low latitudes in the Southern hemisphere rather than in the Northern hemisphere where there is majority of the anthropogenic CO2 emission.)
4) Cyclic abrupt warming and cooling
There are cycles of small, medium, and super large abrupt cooling and warming that have a periodicity of 1470 years. As earth forcing systems are chaotic, there is no earth based forcing mechanism that can create small, medium, and super large cycles all with same periodicity. The cyclic climate changes correlate with cyclic solar cycle changes. The past warming and cooling cycles are high latitude, same as the recent warming period.http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf

Davis and Taylor: “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle”
…We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years …. …. The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). … …. "Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history" and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature , 2012, doi:10.1038/nature11391),reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. ….

Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system (William: Solar magnetic cycle changes cause warming and cooling); oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.

5) No tropical tropospheric hot spothttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/16/about-that-missing-hot-spot/
The IPCC’s general circulation models (GCM) predict that there should be a hot spot at 8km above the surface of the planet. This is not observed.
6) Unexplained current abrupt cooling (Ops has not occurred as of yet). There has been an abrupt change to the sun. There is record sea in the Antarctic for every month of the year, there is rapid recover of Arctic multiyear ice. Defer explanation/discussion until there is in your face evidence of global cooling.

It is probably disconcerting to many to discover that the explanation of global climate change is simple and that CO2 has nothing to do with it. (Ockham would not have been surprised).
Engineering science proves CO2 has no significant effect on climate. The proof and identification of the two factors that do cause reported climate change (sunspot number is the only independent variable in the resulting equation) are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com (now with 5-year running-average smoothing of measured average global temperature (AGT), the near-perfect explanation of AGT since before 1900 of R^2 = 0.97+ ).

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!
Cookie Policy